Delhi Tranporation And Tourism Developlment Corporation vs Sunehari Bagh Builders Pvt. Ltd.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 10.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 01.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 01.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010985012025
+ FAO (COMM) 340/2025, CM APPL. 77498/2025, CM APPL.
77499/2025, CM APPL. 77500/2025, CM APPL. 77501/2025
and CM APPL. 77502/2025
DELHI TRANPORATION AND TOURISM
DEVELOPLMENT CORPORATION .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Umang Tyagi,
Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Mr.
Zuber Ali, Ms. Rajlakshmi
Singh, Mr. Sayantan Chanda,
Advs.

versus

SUNEHARI BAGH BUILDERS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Avinash Trivedi, Mr. Rahul
Aggarwal, Mr. Anurag
Kaushik, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. Through the present Appeal filed under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the
‘A&C Act’], the Appellant assails the correctness of the Judgment
dated 08.09.2025 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’]
passed by the Commercial Court, whereby the Commercial Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
15:07:46

partly set aside the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal [hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Award’] in respect of Claim No. 5 (Watch and
Ward Expenses), while upholding the remaining part of the Award.
2. Pertinently, before the Section 34 Court, the Appellant had
pressed only two submissions, namely, that the invocation of
arbitration by the Respondent was barred by limitation and that the
award of Watch and Ward Expenses under Claim No. 5 was
erroneous. As noted above, the Section 34 Court has partly set aside
the Award in respect of Claim No. 5. Consequently, the only surviving
issue in the present Appeal is with regard to limitation.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The facts, insofar as relevant for adjudication of the present
controversy, may briefly be noticed.
4. The Appellant, a wholly owned company of the Government of
the National Capital Territory of Delhi, invited online bids on
20.09.2014 for construction/creation of a Disaster Management and
Training Centre at Rajokari, New Delhi. The Respondent submitted its
bid on 07.10.2014, which was accepted on 28.10.2014 for a tendered
value of Rs.3,73,98,625/-. The work order, governed by the General
Conditions of Contract [hereinafter referred to as the ‘GCC’],
stipulated a completion period of 120 days commencing from
12.11.2014.
5. Though the Respondent commenced the work on 12.11.2014,
the same was completed only on 07.03.2016. A Completion
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
15:07:46

Certificate was issued on the same date, while reserving the
Appellant’s right to claim damages for the delay. Subsequently, the
Respondent sought extension of time on 01.12.2016, which was
granted on 09.01.2017, subject to protest. Under Clause 9 of the GCC,
the final bill was required to be submitted within three (03) months of
physical completion or within one (01) month of the date of the Final
Certificate of Completion, whichever was earlier. The Respondent,
however, submitted its final bill only on 31.01.2018.
6. Clause 25 of the GCC prescribed a step-by-step mechanism for
resolution of disputes before invocation of arbitration. The Contractor
was first required to approach the Superintendent Engineer, who was
required to give his decision within one (01) month. If dissatisfied, the
Contractor could appeal to the Chief Engineer, who was required to
decide the appeal within thirty (30) days. Thereafter, if the Contractor
remained dissatisfied, it could approach the Dispute Redressal
Committee [hereinafter referred to as the ‘DRC’], which was required
to give its decision within ninety (90) days. Only thereafter could the
Contractor give notice to the Chief Engineer for appointment of an
Arbitrator.
7. On 12.04.2019, the Respondent addressed a letter to the
Engineer-in-Chief raising claims amounting to Rs.1,53,73,024/-. The
Respondent thereafter addressed a letter to the Superintendent
Engineer on 22.05.2019, followed by a letter to the Chief Engineer on
05.07.2019. Subsequently, the Respondent addressed a letter to the
Managing Director on 15.11.2019, requesting appointment of an
Arbitrator. The Appellant disputed the invocation of arbitration as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
15:07:46

being beyond the period of limitation.
8. Upon consent of the parties, Mr. N.K. Sinha was appointed as
the Sole Arbitrator. Vide Award dated 13.08.2022, the Arbitral
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,42,06,630/- in favour of the
Respondent. The Arbitral Tribunal, inter alia , held that the period of
limitation did not commence from 07.03.2016, as contended by the
Appellant, having regard to the contractual mechanism prescribed
under Clause 25 of the GCC and the subsequent events.
9. The Appellant challenged the Award under Section 34 of the
A&C Act. The Commercial Court, vide the Impugned Judgment,
partly set aside the Award in respect of Claim No.5, while upholding
the remaining claims and the finding on limitation. The present
Appeal is, accordingly, confined to the surviving controversy relating
to limitation.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
10. Heard learned senior counsel representing the Appellant and
learned Counsel representing the Respondent and, with their able
assistance, perused the record.
11. Learned senior counsel representing the Appellant submits that
the Respondent was required to complete the work by 11.03.2015,
whereas the work was actually completed on 07.03.2016. Thereafter,
as per Clause 9 of the GCC, the final bill was required to be submitted
within a period of three (03) months from the date of physical
completion of the work or within a period of one (01) month from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
15:07:46

date of the Final Certificate of Completion furnished by the Engineer-
in-Charge, whichever was earlier. Learned senior counsel submits that
the period of limitation, therefore, commenced on 07.04.2016 and
expired on 07.04.2019, whereas arbitration was invoked only on
15.11.2019.
12. Per contra , learned counsel representing the Respondent
supports the Impugned Judgment and submits that the findings
returned by the Arbitral Tribunal and affirmed by the Commercial
Court with regard to limitation are based on a proper appreciation of
the contractual provisions and the facts on record. It is submitted that
the Respondent had invoked arbitration within the period of limitation
and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the present Appeal.
13. No other submissions have been made by the learned senior
counsel and learned counsel representing the respective parties at this
stage.
ANAYSIS AND FINDINGS:
14. As already noticed, the Respondent’s application seeking
extension of time for completion of the work was approved on
09.01.2017. It was thereafter that the Respondent submitted the final
bill on 31.01.2018. Further, even if the Respondent had failed to
submit the final bill within a period of one (01) month from the date of
issuance of the Completion Certificate, as contemplated under the
GCC, it was incumbent upon the Appellant to prepare the final bill.
Admittedly, no such final bill was prepared by the Appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
15:07:46

15. Moreover, Clause 25 of the GCC prescribed a step-by-step
mechanism for resolution of the Respondent’s grievance. The
Respondent, at the initial stage, addressed a letter to the Engineer-in-
Chief on 12.04.2019, followed by a letter dated 22.05.2019 to the
Superintendent Engineer. Thereafter, the Respondent addressed a
letter to the Chief Engineer on 05.07.2019 and subsequently to the
Managing Director on 09.10.2019. Finally, the arbitration clause was
invoked by requesting the Chief Engineer to appoint an Arbitrator on
15.11.2019.
16. The period of limitation, therefore, cannot be held to have
commenced on 07.03.2016, as contended by learned senior counsel
representing the Appellant. The pre-final bill had been paid by the
Respondent on 30.03.2016. Thereafter, the Respondent’s application
seeking extension of time for completion of the work was approved on
09.01.2017, following which the final bill was submitted on
31.01.2018.
17. Learned senior counsel representing the Appellant relies upon
Article 18 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, to contend that
the period of limitation commences when the work is done. In the
facts of the present case, Article 18 would not be applicable,
particularly since the time for completion of the work was
subsequently extended and such extension was approved on
09.01.2017. The period of limitation, therefore, cannot be reckoned
from the original date of completion of the work.
18. Additionally, the Respondent was contractually required to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
15:07:46

follow the procedure prescribed under Clause 25 of the GCC for
resolution of its dispute. The Respondent was required to proceed
through the stipulated stages before invoking arbitration. Having
addressed a letter to the Managing Director of the Appellant on
09.10.2019, the Respondent invoked arbitration on 15.11.2019, i.e.
after a period of one (01) month and six (06) days. In these
circumstances also, Article 18 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act,
1963 has no application.
19. The present case is consequently governed by Article 137 of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and not by Article 18 thereof.
Article 137 provides that the period of limitation commences from the
date when the right to apply accrues. Under Clause 25 of the Contract,
the Respondent could seek appointment of an Arbitrator only after
following the prescribed mechanism for resolution of its grievance,
including the proceedings before the DRC.
20. In the present case, the Respondent addressed a letter to the
Chief Engineer on 05.07.2019 and thereafter proceeded in accordance
with the contractual mechanism. Subsequently, the Respondent
addressed a letter to the Managing Director on 09.10.2019 and
invoked the arbitration clause on 15.11.2019. Thus, the right to apply
for appointment of an Arbitrator did not accrue on the date of
completion of the work, i.e. 07.03.2016.
CONCLUSION:
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in
the present Appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
15:07:46

22. Pending applications shall stand closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
jai/shah
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
15:07:46